http://uu.diva-portal.org
This is an author produced version of a paper published in Landscape and Urban Planning. This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination.
Citation for the published paper:
Grubbström, Ann
"Emotional bonds as obstacles to land sale: attitudes to land among local and absentee landowners in Northwest Estonia"
Landscape and Urban Planning, 2011, Vol. 99, Issue 1, pp. 31-39 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.08.010
Access to the published version may require subscription.
1. Introduction and aims of the study 1
One result of the land restitution process, following the collapse of the Soviet system, is the large 2
number of absentee owners. This has been looked upon as a problematic side effect of the transition 3
process (van Dijk, 2007). Stiglitz highlights that one consequence is that absentee owners may feel 4
alienated from the land and only be interested in making a rapid profit (Stiglitz, 2000). Staehr (2004) 5
applies this argument to Estonia, arguing that the result of the widespread restitution in Estonia is that 6
some owners are not interested in their property and therefore leave it uncultivated and let the 7
buildings fall into disrepair. The Estonian case is of particular interest since the decision to return to 8
the land ownership pattern that existed in 1939 means that all minorities and all those who left the 9
country during the Second World War now are entitled to get their family land back. This is in contrast 10
to many other CEE (Central and Eastern European) countries, in which the starting point for the 11
restitution process is post-war ownership patterns, for example in Poland and the Czech Republic 12
(Swinnen & Mathijs, 1997). Estonia is also of particular interest since owners of restituted properties 13
are able to repossess the exact plot of land they (or their relatives) owned before the Soviet annexation.
14
These historical links between family and land could generate emotional bonds with the property 15
among this group of landowners. This procedure was not possible in many former Soviet republics, 16
since private ownership was abolished at an earlier stage and it was therefore impossible to trace land 17
ownership patterns (Hedin, 2003). The northwest coast of Estonia now has a group of absentee owners 18
from other parts of Estonia and from other countries, especially Sweden.
19
Transition processes concerning Estonia have been studied by several authors, for example 20
Tim Unwin (1997) and Ilka Alanen (2004). The former Swedish settlement areas in Estonia have 21
previously been studied by Hedin (2003, 2005). Hedin compares landowners living in Estonia and 22
landowners living abroad. However, this paper contributes with a complementary analysis by 23
differentiating between local Estonian owners and owners living in other parts of Estonia.
24
Rodríguez-Vicente & Marey-Pérez (2009) highlight the importance to consider the various profiles 25
of private landowners when designing development programmes intended to secure long-term 26
management and sustainability in an area. Brown (2007) also argues that policy should take into 27
consideration that there is an increasing plurality of landowners with different kind of values and 28
attitudes. This paper aims to give examples of how different owner groups value their land and how 29
this might affect their future plans for the property. Such knowledge is valuable when meeting 30
planning demands for future housing, second homes and tourism. The first research question 31
explores how the three landowner groups studied – local owners that live in the same municipality, 32
owners from other parts of Estonia and owners living in Sweden or Finland – value and use their 33
land. Little investigation has been made of the effects of the emotional attachment to land. The 34
second question therefore concerns analysing how emotional bonds to land have affected the 35
landowners’ view of their land and their future plans for the property. This paper includes studies 36
carried out in the coastal municipalities of Noarootsi, Ridala and Nõva, situated in Läänemaa County 37
(Figure 1).
38
Figure 1 39
40
Research areas.
41
2. Land ownership in Estonia – the historical context 42
The roots of the values that landowners in Estonia attach to land can be found in the historical 43
context. In the 19th century most of the farms in the Russian province of Estonia were owned by 44
Baltic-German manors. It is of importance to the present land ownership pattern that the study area 45
was a part of the Swedish settlement area and that a considerable proportion of the population, 46
especially in Noarootsi, were Estonian Swedes at that time. The Peasant Act of 1856 made it 47
possible for tenants to purchase land. Land was categorised as peasant land or manor land and at the 48
end of the 19th century approximately 50 percent of peasant land in Estonia was privately owned 49
(Raun, 1981). The radical land reform of 1919, which was implemented during the first period of 50
Estonian independence, aimed at distributing land that had previously been owned by the manors to 51
landless peasants (Lipping 1980). This reform made it possible for a large number of peasants to 52
become owners of family farms, and Taagepera (1972) estimate that in 1939, 86 percent of the farms 53
in Estonia were in private ownership.
54
The terror experienced during the first Soviet occupation 1940–1941 and the threats of a 55
second Soviet occupation made the majority of Estonian Swedes leave Estonia in 1943–1944, most 56
of them going to Sweden. The Soviet annexation of Estonia in 1944 ended the short period of 57
independence. The subsequent collectivisation towards the end of the 1940s abolished private 58
ownership, and the population was only allowed to keep small household farms (Maandi 2009).
59
The politics of perestroika, beginning in 1987, led to the emergence of private plot farming 60
and the opportunity for some private family farms to be reinstated in the form of eternal leases of 61
land from the kolkhozes (Alanen, 1999). A radical land reform was implemented in October 1991 by 62
the independent Estonian government. Those who were Estonian citizens could demand the return of 63
or compensation for land that was nationalised by the Soviet regime (Terk, 2000). By using the land 64
ownership pattern from 1939, the Estonian restitution process seeks to undo and erase from history 65
the changes that took place during the Soviet period. In this way a reconnection with tradition and 66
family history linked to the land was made possible. The restitution process is now complete and in 67
Läänemaa in 2008, 82 percent of the total area of the county had been registered with different 68
owners (www.maamet.ee 10.05.17). Land has mostly been restored to previous owners or their 69
families but the figure also includes owners that have received their property through auctions or 70
purchases. There are some exceptions where land could not be restituted. Owners of houses bought 71
during the Soviet period have first refusal to their houses and the surrounding land. Owners with first 72
refusal also include those who held eternal leases of land from the collective in the late 1980s 73
(Maareformi Seadus 1999).
74
3. Values of land ownership and emotional attachment to land 75
A number of values can be attached to land ownership, both economic and non-economic. These 76
values may be expressed through land use, through leasing out land or selling property rights. Brown 77
(2007) states that property ownership is not characterised by a static relationship between people and 78
objects; it is constantly changing and “continually renegotiated depending on how people see it, the 79
meanings they attach to it and the purpose they wish it to serve”. This view makes it crucial to 80
further investigate owner’s attitudes to land. Several researchers have emphasised the non-economic 81
values attached to land ownership. Hedin (2003) shows that non-economic values such as attachment 82
to a place and kinship relations are important for understanding landowners’ relationship to the 83
property. The importance of kinship has also been recognised in the field of generational change 84
within farming (Errington & Lobley 2002). In their study of Norway, Flemsaeter & Setten (2009) 85
highlight that by studying this close relationship between property and kinship, it is possible to 86
clarify why owners choose not to sell their property. They show that among Norwegian 87
smallholders, there is a strong feeling of responsibility between different generations. In the case of 88
Eastern Europe, these feelings of responsibility towards past and future generations may be 89
reinforced by the historical experiences of loss of land and then restitution. Such historically rooted 90
emotional attachments to land are in focus here. Smith et al. (2009) claim that geographical research 91
has mostly excluded emotional aspects but that there is a growing interest in emotions when dealing 92
with people and place. The absence of research dealing with emotions could be due to the difficulties 93
in defining emotions. In the case of emotional values of land ownership, these values must be 94
understood through the landowner’s own experiences.
95
The particular forms of emotional bonds to land that might occur in Estonia and other 96
countries affected by the Soviet collectivisation have rarely been illuminated. One exception is van 97
Dijk (2007), who states that the communist system in Central and Eastern Europe affected the way 98
in which landowners bond with their land in a manner that has made land more emotionally charged 99
than in Western societies. Van Dijk draws the conclusion that absentee owners in Central Europe 100
seem to have a greater propensity for developing emotional bonds to the land. Hedin claims in her 101
study of the Estonian Swedish area that the main difference between Estonian and Swedish owners 102
is that “the economics of land use” is of minor importance for the Swedish owners and that their 103
landowning had more of a symbolic value (Hedin 2005). There are a few other studies that concern 104
Estonia. Research on Estonian forest owners and their objectives with respect to forest ownership 105
shows that economic objectives are the most important but that “emotional and traditional values of 106
forest ownership” was listed as number four out of ten objectives (Järvinen et al. 2003). Jörgensen 107
and Stjernström emphasise that emotional bonds can have an impact on the management of the 108
forest. They argue that these kinds of emotional links could restrict the implementation of modern 109
forestry, since the emotional bonds to land are stronger than the economic motives for land 110
possession (Jörgensen & Stjernström, 2008). Earlier research in Noarootsi shows that landowners 111
view the house as the most significant part of their property (Grubbström 2009). There is a close 112
connection between actual land use and the values and feelings that an owner attaches to land. The 113
garden and the fields close to the house are often more intensively used and may therefore have 114
stronger emotional values attached to them than more extensively used land, for example forest land.
115
A landowner’s relationship with a certain place is central to understanding the emotional 116
bonds with land that owners have. Massey considers place to be “formed out of the particular set 117
of social relations which interact at a particular location” (Massey, 2004). Place is seen here as a 118
constant process of change in which social relationships from both past and present are significant.
119
Setten (2005) argues that relationships between different generations create knowledge that bind 120
together the family and create a sense of identity with the land. Tuan writes about “affective 121
bonds” between people and place (Tuan, 1974). An assumption in the present study is that the 122
affective bonds that may evolve can be long-lasting and influence attitudes towards a place and a 123
landowner’s decision regarding what to do with the land. The owner’s land in Estonia could also 124
be important to the next generation, even if the children were not able to visit it during the Soviet 125
period. In such cases, interaction with the place is indirect and devoid of personal experiences, the 126
result of stable, learnt images of a place (Holloway & Hubbard, 2001). In this sense the mental 127
images of a place are important for the emotional bonds that may evolve.
128
The transfer of the land and the conveyance of feelings of attachment to the land from the 129
older to the younger generation can be related to Bourdieu’s (1986) different forms of capital. Here, 130
the economic capital is the transfer of the property itself. Cultural capital is, as Bourdieu emphasises, 131
“invested by the family” in the form of knowledge and values. Social capital may be transferred in 132
the form of relationships and contacts. Both cultural and social capital can be converted to economic 133
capital. The last form of capital that could be of relevance for this study is Symbolic capital which is 134
the symbolic representation of the other forms of capital.
135
Although earlier research has highlighted non economic values of land ownership, this has 136
rarely been discussed in the context of the post-Soviet countries. There are few studies of the 137
Estonian case and those studies only briefly touch upon the emotional aspects of land ownership.
138
This study aims to deepen the understanding of the emotional bonds to land among landowners who 139
received land through restitution in countries affected by Soviet collectivisation. It also aims to 140
provide further insights into the effects such bonds might have for an area. Since earlier research has 141
emphasised that future planning must take into consideration many different owner profiles, more 142
research is needed to show how attitudes to land might vary between different owner groups and the 143
reasons for these variations. The present study has therefore been designed to investigate 144
landowners’ own experiences and thoughts about their land ownership.
145
4. Study area 146
A majority of the landowners in Nõva, Noarootsi and Ridala are absentee owners (Table 1). The 147
term ‘absentee owner’ is used here to describe an owner who does not live in the municipality in 148
which the property is located. The coastal region is an interesting area for study since the demand for 149
land for second homes and other investments in tourism mean that it is under pressure to be 150
exploited.
151
The population in the area has traditionally earned their living from farming and subsidiary 152
occupations such as fishing and shipping. Today, the tradition of family farming is disappearing, and 153
the agriculture that remains consists on the one hand of small plot farms that are mostly cultivated by 154
pensioners and, on the other, large scale farming. According to the agricultural census in 2001, 42 155
percent of the total land area in Läänema is used for agriculture and 33 percent consists of forest 156
(Eesti Statistika 21 April 2009). In total only 3 percent of the population in the area declared income 157
from farming as their major source of income in 2000. The population in the area has rapidly 158
declined since the mid 20th century. At present, the land ownership pattern in the area is quite 159
fragmented with many landowners involved. Swedish and Finnish landowners are more strongly 160
represented in Noarootsi than in Nõva and Ridala (Table 1). Due to their pre-war settlement patterns, 161
Swedish landowners mostly own properties in villages close to the coast. In most cases, there is no 162
such historical connection among the Finnish landowners.
163
Table 1 164
(n= 8136)
Same municipality
Another municipality in Estonia
Sweden or Finland
Noarootsi 24 45 31
Ridala 38 59 3
Nõva 39 55 6
165
The place of residence of landowners and their number in percent. The figure is based on the total 166
number of properties in the municipalities studied.
167 168
A great many buildings were destroyed during the Soviet occupation. Nowadays many of the 169
remaining old houses are used as second homes during the summer season. This coastal area is also 170
attractive for building second homes. However, the coastal land has partly been designated a nature 171
reserve with the aim of safeguarding important geological and biological values. This also prevents 172
new buildings being erected close to the shore, and those who own land in the reserve can only sell it 173
to the municipality. In order to prevent widespread fragmentation of plots, a restriction on the 174
minimum size has been introduced. Forests are to be managed according to the forestry management 175
plan, and properties that include cropland must harvest hay once a year and are entitled to EU 176
subsidies for this work. The municipality has set up contact between absentee owners and the local 177
farmers so that the owners can lease out land to active farmers. This makes the conditions for local 178
agriculture more favourable while preventing land becoming overgrown. The area has a tradition of 179
resorts and sanatoria and this kind of resort tourism, combined with nature-oriented tourism with 180
visitors interested in visiting the nature reserves, has a potential in the area.
181
5. Research methods 182
This study uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. A postal survey was followed 183
by an interview study. The aims of the postal survey were to investigate the relationship of the 184
owners to their property, as well as current and planned land use. Interviews were used to acquire 185
more personal information about the owners’ attitudes towards their property and their ideas about 186
future land use. The interview study was also intended to achieve a better understanding of the 187
landowners’ feelings about their land and how these feelings have developed over time.
188
5.1 Postal survey 189
The land register from 2005, with data for each land holding and the address of the owner, was 190
acquired from the municipalities studied. Properties over one hectare in size and in private 191
ownership were considered relevant to the survey. A sample of landowners was selected at random 192
and 395 questionnaires were sent out in August 2006. After a reminder, a second questionnaire was 193
sent out five weeks later. The response rate was 36 percent (n=144). Some respondents informed me 194
that they had decided not to participate, and the most common reason was that the owner was 195
deceased, ill or already had transferred the property to the next generation. If a generational shift is 196
in progress and land is in the process of being transferred or has recently been transferred, this may 197
negatively affect the response rate, since the ownership situation may be unclear. An additional 198
reason for the rather low response rate could be the scepticism towards authorities in Estonia 199
(Jörgensen & Stjernström, 2009). This argument is supported by the fact that the response rate 200
among owners living in Sweden or Finland was higher (51 percent).
201
The respondents were evenly distributed among men and women, 50 percent of each sex.
202
The mean age of the respondents was 59 years. Almost 39 percent of the respondents were 65 years 203
or older. It is to be expected that many of the owners who acquired a property through restitution are 204
relatively old. As many as 46 percent of the respondents are pensioners, and it is likely that this 205
group had more time to fill in the questionnaire compared to other groups and is therefore 206
overrepresented in the response group. Data was analysed with respect to the landowner’s place of 207
residence. For purposes of comparison three groups of landowners were identified: owners living in 208
the same municipality, owners from other municipalities in Estonia, and owners from Sweden and 209
Finland. Since Finnish landowners are a minority of the group referred to as landowners from 210
Sweden and Finland, this group mostly represent Swedish landowners. A comparison between the 211
respondents and the total number of landowners in the land registers shows that relatively few of 212
those who have a property in Noarootsi but live in another municipality in Estonia responded to the 213
questionnaire. The landowners that have a property in Noarootsi but live in Sweden or Finland are 214
overrepresented. Other groups of landowners are quite representative among the respondents.
215
5.2 Interviews 216
An important point of departure is that the history of the property and of the family who owned or 217
cultivated the land is crucial for understanding the landowner’s relationship to the land. The 218
interviews were designed as topical life stories, a concept used by Riley and Harvey where the focus 219
lies on one aspect of a person’s life (Riley & Harvey, 2007) – in this case on the relationship to the 220
property in Estonia. This topic is bound up with personal and family histories. A family history can 221
reveal relationships to the land in question and provide some insight into people’s reaction to 222
political changes in a broader perspective. The interviews can also present a more nuanced picture of 223
the experiences of land ownership among different types of landowners.
224
The interviewees were selected from among those who had responded to the survey, and the 225
intention was to meet landowners from different areas, of different ages and of different genders.
226
Nine semi-structured interviews were held in 2008, and an additional short telephone interview was 227
conducted with a young landowner who lives in Sweden and owns land in Nõva. Four of the 228
interviewees were women and six men, and the interviews in Estonia required an interpreter. Three 229
of the landowners interviewed lived in the vicinity of Stockholm and owned land in Ridala and 230
Noarootsi. Three local owners from Noarootsi were also interviewed. Lastly interviews were 231
conducted with three owners who lived in Tallinn and owned land in Ridala. I have also used some 232
information from an interview study in 2006, conducted with eight local farmers in Noarootsi, and 233
two interviews with large-scale farmers in Noarootsi in 2009. It is quite possible that the emotional 234
values are stronger among the group studied than among owners in general, since those who are 235
emotionally attached to their property may be more predisposed to accept a request for participating 236
in the study.
237
6. Different ways of and reasons for acquiring land 238
Restitution, inheritance or gift imply rather passive ways of acquiring land, but landowners who 239
have obtained land in these ways are those who are the most likely to want to re-establish links to 240
family tradition and history. Buying land is a more active way of acquiring a property, but these 241
landowners more often have a weaker emotional bond to their land (van Dijk, 2007). It is clear that a 242
larger proportion of the landowners who live in the same municipality and in Sweden have acquired 243
land through restitution or a combination including restitution compared to landowners living in 244
another municipality. All landowners who acquired land through purchase or auction, within the 245
group of landowners from Sweden or Finland, are respondents from Finland (Table 2).
246 247
Table 2 248
(n=144)
Same municipality
Another municipality
in Estonia
Sweden or Finland
Total
Restitution 24 16 12 52
Combination including
restitution 4 3 7 14
Inheritance or gift 5 18 10 25
First refusal 11 6 0 17
Purchase or/and auction 7 14 4 25
Other combinations 1 1 1 3
Total 52 58 34 144
249
Local and absentee owners’ ways of acquiring land. The figures refer to property number one, the 250
land first acquired by the owner.
251 252
The reason for acquiring the land provides significant information on how the owner values the land 253
and is a measure of the relationship between economic and non-economic values. The respondents 254
were asked how they valued a number of motives by assigning them a value from 1–5, where 1 was 255
the most important (Table 3). Figures show that regaining family property is the most important 256
motive for the owners. Access to a second home is also of great importance, which reflects the 257
attractiveness of the coastal area. In third place comes re-establishing contact with the family’s home 258
district. This shows that emotional, non-economic values are of considerable importance for a large 259
part of the landowning group.
260
261
Table 3 262
Number Mean
Std.
Deviation
1=most important
Regain family property 100 1.95 1.438 58%
Access to second home 88 2.23 1.491 48%
Re-establish contact with the family’s home
district 86 2.43 1.642 44%
Access to wood 100 2.49 1.521 37%
Access to arable land for own use 95 3.0 1.624 25%
Possibility of income 87 3.13 1.500 22%
The importance of motives for acquiring the property. Figures show the number of respondents who 263
have selected a specific motive, the mean value for how the respondents have valued each motive (1 264
= most important, 5 = not at all important), the standard deviation, and the percentage of respondents 265
who selected value 1 for each motive.
266 267
The three different groups of landowners valued their motives for acquiring land quite differently if 268
the mean values for their motives are compared (Table 4). Regaining family property is more 269
important for landowners living in Sweden or Finland and for those living in the same municipality 270
compared to landowners from other municipalities. The link between family and land seems to be of 271
great significance to those who have historical connections to the area. As one Swedish owner 272
expressed it: “When it became possible to apply for the land, it felt completely natural to connect 273
with our roots. We wanted to own it again; no-one else should take it over”. As Hedin (2003) claims, 274
the most important thing was to once again own family land; deciding what to do with it was of 275
secondary importance.
276 277 278
Table 4 279
Same municipality
Another municipality in Estonia
Sweden or
Finland Number
Regain family property 1,8 2,32 1,6 100
Access to second home 2,74 1,9 2,3 88
Re-establish contact with the
family's home district 2,52 2,76 1,88 86
Access to wood 1,48 2,58 4,45 100
Access to arable land for
own use 1,95 3,16 4,57 95
Possibility of income 2,57 2,92 4,18 87
280
The importance of motives for acquiring the property. Figures show the mean values for different 281
owner categories: 1 = most important, 5 = of no importance.
282 283
Land forms to only a minor extent the basis of the owner’s income. Overall, ten respondents stated 284
that their property contributed to their individual livelihoods. Generally, economic reasons are more 285
important for owners living in Estonia compared to owners from Sweden and Finland. Only one of 286
the landowners living abroad stressed that income was a crucial factor in the decision to acquire the 287
land. Access to a second home is most important for absentee owners in Estonia. Not surprisingly, 288
access to wood or access to arable land for their own use was most important for the owners living in 289
the same municipality. These results in some respects correlate with the arguments presented by 290
Hedin that family tradition was important for both landowners living abroad and landowners living 291
in Estonia (Hedin, 2005). However, the present study’s distinction between the two groups of 292
Estonian owners indicates that local owners have the most varied motives for acquiring land.
293
Compared to owners living in other municipalities in Estonia, they are more dependent on their 294
property to make a living and, at the same time, attach greater importance to emotional aspects such 295
as regaining family property.
296
7. Attitudes to land and land use 297
As many as 73 percent of the landowners living abroad spend less than two weeks per year or no 298
time at all on their property. The corresponding figure for landowners living in another municipality 299
in Estonia is 47 percent. One important explanation for this is that only 36 percent of the landowners 300
living abroad and 67 percent of the landowners living in another municipality have a house on the 301
property. The standard of the houses can be quite simple, thus limiting their opportunities and 302
willingness to stay overnight. In total 67 of the respondents wanted to spend more time on their land.
303
Owners’ descriptions of land use provides important information about how different 304
owners value land. Respondents were asked whether the agricultural land is tilled or if the forest is 305
managed. They also answered questions on other possible uses of the land, for example hunting and 306
picking berries. Regular visits where the main purpose of the visit is social are thus not regarded as 307
land use. Arable land is, not surprisingly, most actively used by the local owners. The postal survey 308
also shows that it is mostly Estonian owners who lease out their land. However, large scale farmers 309
in Noarootsi claim that quite a large part of their land is leased from Swedish owners. One of the 310
local owners leases land for pasture and she says that the neighbours view this positively. “My 311
neighbours come and ask if I can bring my horses. They say that the horses can graze there and I can 312
also make hay”. Landowners lease out land for free since it is important for them to take care of 313
family land and prevent land becoming overgrown. One large scale farmer estimates that he only 314
pays rent to 10 percent of the landowners from whom he leases land. Compared to arable land, forest 315
land is more easily managed by absentee owners, which explains why a relatively large number of 316
owners living in other municipalities in Estonia stated that they use the forest and that their earnings 317
from forestry are important. Access to wood is also the third most important motive for acquiring the 318
property for this group of owners (Table 4). Absentee owners living in Estonia use their forests for 319
picking berries and mushrooms and sometimes use land for growing vegetables and potatoes. In this 320
way, the land provides additional economic value but interviews indicate that the main motive is the 321
opportunity to eat home-grown, clean food that is free from chemicals.
322
The earlier findings of Hedin (2003), that few landowners living abroad have done 323
anything with their property, are still valid. Only approximately 2 percent of the owners living in 324
Sweden or Finland have reported any form of land use in their response to the survey. Even if the 325
land is not actively used, ownership can still be important. As one landowner from Sweden explains:
326
“Owning it means that no one can destroy it or start building something offensive on it”. Ownership 327
is looked upon as a way to prevent the area being developed in a way that the owner would oppose.
328
However, this attitude contributes to the fact that the land has become overgrown, something that 329
several of the interviewees look negatively upon. Local owners are affected by this visually, and 330
stated that the ideal for “a real farm” is that it should be active. Earlier research has shown that rural 331
residents with a strong emotional attachment to a place are more positive towards getting involved in 332
landscape preservation, such as farmland protection (Walker & Ryan, 2008). Local owners also 333
mentioned that the overgrown landscape may result in tourists being less attracted to the area. Few 334
landowners see the opportunity to develop tourism as viable on their own properties. All in all, 62 335
owners (n= 92) consider that their own property has no potential for generating income through 336
tourism or cottage rental. Only 15 landowners describe the potential in this area as being very great 337
or great, and these are mostly owners from coastal villages.
338 339 340 341 342
Figure 2.
343
Figure 2. A dilapidated cowshed with a renovated residential building just visible behind. Phot by the author, Noarootsi 2009.
344
A dilapidated cowshed with a renovated residential building just visible behind. Photo by the author, 345
Noarootsi 2009.
346
A possible means of income would be to partition and sell the land. However, the most important 347
reason for partitioning the property for second homes is consideration for future generations, and 348
hence partitioning for family use. Re-establishing contact with the family’s home district is also 349
important. Owners living in another municipality in Estonia are also interested in possibly setting up 350
home there in the future. The respondents who are positive towards partitioning for second homes 351
seem to value non-economic motives, such as access to the countryside, more highly than economic 352
motives, and there are no differences between owners of properties in coastal villages and owners in 353
other villages. Owners with strong emotional bonds to the property do not seem to think that the 354
location and the size of the property are important in terms of the decision to sell or keep the 355
property. However, some owners of large properties say that they could envisage selling off land to 356
which they are less emotionally attached, for example forest. In conclusion, it is clear that emotional 357
aspects override economic considerations for most of the landowners.
358
8. The legacy of emotions and its impact on future plans 359
Evidence from the interviews shows that the content as well as the effects of the emotional 360
attachment to land differs to some extent between the three owner groups studied and between 361
different generations. It should be clarified that the following discussion mainly concerns owners of 362
restituted or inherited property.
363
8.1 The foundations of the emotional ties to land 364
The interwar period with private family farms was seen as an ideal and, as Unwin expresses it, “all 365
led to a conceptualisation of the Soviet occupation embodying the destructing of Estonia’s rural 366
identity” (Unwin, 1997). The interviewed landowners explain how their parents or grandparents 367
became freeholders and subsequently built up a family farm. This process involved a great deal of 368
work and was often accompanied by a sense of pride. The Estonian Swedes talk about the frustration 369
that their parents felt when they had to leave everything behind. The Estonians recount that their 370
parents rarely spoke about the farm they owned or the possibility of nationalised properties once 371
again being in private possession. The reasons for this were fear of being reported to the communist 372
regime and the loss being connected with so much hurt and anger that it was best not to talk about it.
373
As one local landowner recalls: “We were not allowed to control the land we formerly owned. You 374
weren’t allowed to do this openly, but my father did note what happened to our land and when he 375
had been drinking he became angry and when he was at home he could say that now they are cutting 376
down trees on our land.” Hence, children were aware of the despair that their parents felt about the 377
nationalisation of land, even if it was rarely mentioned. This awareness seems to be significant for 378
the feelings they developed as adults towards the land and how they felt about the opportunity of 379
reclaiming it through restitution.
380
Not only material losses have implications for people’s attachment to land. The destiny of 381
the people who lived on the land is also an important factor. The Second World War meant arrests, 382
deportations and mobilisations, which resulted in families being scattered to the winds. Almost all 383
families were affected directly or indirectly by such acts. Family memories and experiences might be 384
closely connected to the house and the land where the family had lived. Land, and houses in 385
particular, therefore becomes a symbol of family history and in that way symbolic capital in the 386
transfer process.
387
8.2 Memories of and experiences on the land 388
According to the interviewed absentee owners, memories and events that can link the owner with the 389
land are essential. However, there are differences between absentee owner groups and different 390
generations. The Tallinn-resident owners point out that social capital as contact with family, 391
relatives and friends who live in the area or spend time there during holidays and at weekends has 392
significance for their attachment to the area. It is also clear that childhood memories are important.
393
One of them spent time at his grandmother’s farm as a child: “…childhood memories play an 394
important role…We were all there and there were a lot of people and it was so much fun when we 395
made hay. I have great memories from that time”. In contrast to owners from Sweden and Finland, 396
such memories from the Soviet period are likely to be found among a majority of the Estonian 397
absentees who obtained their land through restitution or inheritance.
398
The older generation of landowners from Sweden has their own relationship to and 399
experiences from the time they lived on the land in Estonia. A woman who lives in Sweden and has 400
no memories from Estonia explains the difference between her own feelings and the feelings that her 401
older brothers have towards selling the property. Her brothers have memories from their childhood 402
in Estonia: “I thought we should try to make as much money as possible ... I think they are more 403
careful in a way. They have emotional bonds in another way. They want to sell but can’t bring 404
themselves to do it”. The quote highlights that emotions can act as a constraint, prohibiting the sale 405
of the property. It is common with shared ownership among the owners living in Sweden or Finland, 406
the survey shows that 70 percent share the property with other family members or relatives. The 407
corresponding figure for the owners living in another municipality in Estonia is 34 percent, and only 408
25 percent of the local owners shared the ownership of the property with someone else. For Swedish 409
owners it seems like shared owning was a first step and that prior to the next generational shift, they 410
tend to partition the property more often. Shared ownership could be a source of conflict and prevent 411
owners from selling or subdividing land, since all owners must come to an agreement.
412
The younger generation in Sweden was long told stories about Estonia by parents and 413
relatives. “My mother was a wonderful storyteller… I knew all about her life, as much as she could 414
remember, about all our relatives, everything that happened …”. These stories were often the only 415
connection to the land that they had during the first part of the Soviet occupation. From these stories 416
the children constructed mental images about family land in Estonia. During the last twenty years of 417
the occupation it was possible to visit Estonia, although there were tight restrictions. Those who 418
went back during the Soviet era brought back information about family land and relatives that was 419
important for the part of the family who lived in Sweden. This is example of how social relationships 420
and contacts could be upheld and transferred to the younger generation.
421
Independence and the restitution process drastically changed the situation for the Swedish 422
owners with respect to their relationship with Estonia. It was once again possible to own family land, 423
travel to Estonia, and keep in touch with Estonian relatives and friends. As one young landowner 424
from Sweden expressed it: “When Estonia became independent, it meant a new start for my father”.
425
He describes how his father started to tell more stories about his childhood in Estonia and how this 426
also had an impact on his own interest in the family’s links with the country: “it was a new start for 427
me as well”. This young landowner is an example of how cultural capital in the form of knowledge 428
and feelings towards the property has been transferred to the second generation. His mental image of 429
the place has now been supplemented with his own experiences from trips to Estonia. Those who 430
visit their family land and remaining relatives often find this a potent emotional experience. They 431
can compare their childhood memories, or the mental image they constructed from the stories they 432
were told, with reality. Interviewees describe the discrepancy between these two images. The 433
overgrown landscape, the decline in population and the fact that so many houses have disappeared 434
are features that they mention.
435
8.3 Future generations, expectations and hopes 436
The interviewed absentee owners are not interested in living permanently on their land. Those who 437
live in Tallinn want to maintain their comfortable life in the city. However, it is of great importance 438
to keep their property – as one of them said, “We will never sell this property.” Granberg (2004) 439
emphasises that the property can be seen as a link to their country roots while they enjoy a modern 440
life in the city. By keeping the land, these links can be upheld and possibly also strengthened in the 441
future. Such plans for the future can include a desire for children and grandchildren to spend time on 442
the property and build houses there. Several of the absentee owners interviewed had plans to build 443
second homes that had not yet been realised. Emotional bonds to the land among the older 444
generation sometimes create expectations for the next generation. As one of the landowners from 445
Sweden interviewed expresses it: “They know that I would like them to live on the land in the 446
village where our ancestors worked so hard. I think they will take up that tradition, when time allows 447
it, eventually, maybe”. This landowner had already transferred his land to the next generation.
448
However, the above quotation also shows that he has transferred other cultural values – in the form 449
of a strong desire for his children to use the family land and honour traditions. It also shows the 450
feeling of uncertainty about whether or not his expectations will be fulfilled. This is something that 451
other interviewees also mention, and they are aware that the younger generation has a complicated 452
‘life balance’ to maintain. One landowner from Tallinn explained why their son has not yet realised 453
his plans of a second home on the property: “ He always has great plans where this is concerned, but 454
he has so little time since he has to travel a lot with his work and he also has children who take up 455
his time”. It is not easy to find the time to take care of family land and Van Dijk claims that the 456
younger generation of landowners will probably not be so interested in owning a plot, and 457
consequently a considerable portion of the absentees’ landholdings will be put up for sale (van Dijk, 458
2003). I would argue that, compared to the owners in Sweden and Finland, it seems much more 459
likely that the next generation of owners living in other parts of Estonia will spend time on their 460
family land and may even build second homes. This is, of course, simply a consequence of the fact 461
that the land is closer and easier to visit. However, it should be emphasised that childhood memories 462
and regular visits are factors that can strengthen feelings for family properties, and therefore the will 463
to keep and use the land.
464
9. Concluding discussion 465
This investigation of landowner’s attitudes to their land in North West Estonia adds to previous 466
research by examining the emotional bonds to land in a post-Soviet context, which previous research 467
only briefly touched on. One main finding is that the studied landowners generally attach strong 468
emotional values to land, for historical reasons, and that such values are a strong incentive for 469
keeping the property. Earlier research has highlighted the absentee owner’s emphasis on the non- 470
economic values of land in contrast to local owners. This study shows that owners who obtained 471
their property through restitution generally seem to have a greater propensity for historically rooted 472
emotional attachment to land, and that this group of owners is most likely to be found among local 473
owners and those who live in Sweden. The thinking behind the emotional motives for obtaining land 474
can be summarised in three main points.
475
Firstly the loss of the land that parents or grandparents purchased at the end of 19th century 476
or were assigned as a land reform farm in 1919. How this loss, as a result of the Soviet annexation in 477
1940, was experienced is crucial for the development of strong feelings for land. The second aspect 478
is the idea that the land represents the roots of the family, thus making it important to regain family 479
land irrespective of its size and the location. The third aspect has to do with memories of the land 480
and the area in general. In a comparative perspective, those with their own memories of family land 481
have a greater propensity to develop strong emotional bonds with the land than those who only have 482
mental images of it based on stories told by parents and other relatives. Emotional attachment to land 483
also seems closely intertwined with the memories of the individuals who used to live on the land.
484
The first aspect concerning the experience of losing property during Soviet rule is specific to Eastern 485
Europe and can strengthen the value that landowners place on other aspects as well. The link 486
between different generations and family land that has been described by Setten (2005) for example 487
may therefore be enhanced.
488
Interviews show that parents, in addition to economic assets, often want to pass on emotional 489
values associated with land to the next generation. This is in line with Bourdieu’s (1986) ideas about 490
different forms of capital within transmission. This transfer of capital could be discussed in terms of 491
cultural capital as knowledge about the land and the family history associated with the property.
492
Cultural capital also includes values that are passed on with the expectation that the younger 493
generation will continue to own and manage the land of their ancestors. The social capital is 494
transferred in the form of relationships and contacts with friends and relatives who live in the area 495
where the land is situated. The property becomes a symbolic representation of family memories and 496
experiences – a symbol of family tradition and history.
497
The results from this analysis also contribute to previous research by examining different 498
owner groups and the implications of emotional bonds to land. One key finding is that the non- 499
economic motives for owning land in the area seem to override the economic ones for most of the 500
owners investigated. Emotional values also appear to govern owners’ decisions about land to a great 501
extent. However, economic motives are more important for owners living in Estonia than for owners 502
from Sweden and Finland, even though few make a living out of their land. Local owners were more 503
resolute than the other owner groups with respect to the importance of actively using land. One 504
strategy was to rent out land, sometimes even free of charge, if they were not able to use land by 505
themselves. An important result, in line with Hedin’s research from the beginning of the 2000s, is 506
that very few of the owners settled in Sweden and Finland use the land at all. They also spend very 507
little time on their land, which is the case for a great number of the absentees living in Estonia as 508
well. Staehr claims that this shows that the owners are not interested in the property (Staehr 2004).
509
The present study indicates that it might instead be justifiable to speak of a kind of preventive land 510
ownership, intended to make sure that nothing happens to the land to which the owner would object.
511
It is also a result of the uncertainty that many owners feel about the future. They do not use their 512
land, but if they have emotional bonds to the property, they want to make sure that the land remains 513
in the family’s ownership in case someone takes an interest in using it. One explanation for this non- 514
active land ownership among Swedish owners is that a majority share ownership with another 515
person, which in some cases makes it difficult to reach an agreement about land use or sale. The 516
discrepancy between the images of the land based on memory or mental images on the one hand and 517
reality on the other is also an important reason why many of the landowners interviewed do not 518
spend that much time on their property and have never realised plans of building a second home 519
there. This, along with the sometimes considerable distance between the respondent’s home and the 520
restituted property, and lack of time, probably explains why many properties remain unused.
521
Another effect of emotional bonds is that relatively few owners are interested in partitioning the 522
property, especially if this means putting parts of it up for sale.
523
What do these results imply for the study area? Despite the land management policies and 524
that some owners lease out land to active farmers, the overgrown landscape seems to be a problem.
525
Non-active land ownership affects the landscape and visitors’ impressions of the area. This is 526
especially relevant in Noarootsi, which has a considerable group of non-active landowners from 527
Sweden who own properties located in coastal villages. Strong emotional bonds can act as a 528
constraint to sale and with such bonds existing in a large group of landowners it means that land in 529
the area that has potential for tourism has actually been taken off the market. If few properties are 530
put up for sale, the predominance of an elderly population is likely to continue. Furthermore, the 531
level of service in the area studied will not improve and the kind of tourism that requires a high 532
standard of food and accommodation will not be attracted to the area. However, there are already 533
signs that the ongoing generational shift will lead to greater willingness to sell off land. Bourdieu’s 534
view of capital as convertible could in this context be used to show how the importance of social and 535
cultural capital could decline and be converted to economic considerations. If the younger generation 536
does not form a close relationship with the land they own, most of them will not experience the same 537
emotional attachment to it as their parents have experienced. However, it is also possible that 538
absentee owners from other parts of Estonia will use their land more actively, most likely for second 539
homes or perhaps as a permanent home when they retire. It is essential for contemporary 540
policymakers to take into account the different profiles of private landowners. This knowledge may 541
in turn have an impact on the kinds of plans and investments that are regarded as suitable for a 542
specific area.
543
Acknowledgements 544
I wish to thank the Swedish research council for environment, agricultural sciences and spatial 545
planning (FORMAS 2004-1579) and the Swedish research council, (VR 2004-2742) for financial 546
support of this research. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for constructive suggestions 547
and comments. I also wish to thank Danielle van der Burgt, Åsa Bråmå and Hans Jörgenssen for 548
helpful comments.
549
List of References
1. Alanen, I., (ed.) (2004). Mapping the Rural Problem in the Baltic Countryside. Transition Processes in the Rural Areas of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Aldershot: Ashgate.
2. Alanen, I., (1999) Agricultural Policy and the Struggle over the Destiny of Collective Farms in Estonia. Sociol Ruralis. 39 (3), 431-458.
3. Bourdieu, P., (1986). The Forms of Capital in Richardson, J. G. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Westport, Conn Greenwood press.
4. Brown, K. M., (2007). Reconciling moral and legal collective entitlement: Implications for community-based land reform. Land Use Policy 24 (4), 633-643.
5. van Dijk, T., (2007). Complications for traditional land consolidation in Central Europe.
Geoforum, 38 (3), 505-511.
6. van Dijk, T., (2003) Scenarios of Central European land fragmentation. Land Use Policy 20 (2), 149-158.
7. Eesti Statistika (Estonian Statistics): http://www.stat.ee/loendused
8. Errington, A. & Lobley, M., (2002). “Handing over the reins: A comparative study of intergenerational farm transfers in England, France, Canada and the USA. Conference paper European Association of Agricultural Economists, Zaragoza 29-31 August 2002.
9. Flemsaeter, F.& Setten, G., (2009) Holding property in trust: kinship, law, and property enactment in Norwegian smallholdings. Environ plann A. 41 (9), 2267-2284.
10. Granberg, L., (2004) From Agriculture to Tourism: constructing New Relations between Rural Nature and Culture in Lithuania and Finland. In: I.Alanen (ed.) Mapping the Rural
Problem in the Baltic Countryside. Transition Processes in the Rural Areas of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Aldershot: Ashgate.
11. Grubbström, A., (2009). From Farms to Second Homes – Gendered Strategies for Generational Change in Noarootsi, Estonia, 1880-2006. In: Á. Neményi (ed.), Trends in Land Succession. Swiss National Science Foundation, Cluj: University Press.
12. Hedin, S., (2005) Land restitution in the former Swedish settlement areas in Estonia consequences for land ownership, land use and landscape. Landscape Urban Plan.70, 35- 44.
13. Hedin, S., (2003) Åter till släktens mark? En studie av markåterlämningen i Estlands svenskbygder efter Sovjetunionens sammanbrott (Back to family land? A study of land restitution in the former Swedish settlement areas of Estonia after the collapse of the Soviet Union) Geografiska regionstudier, nr 54. Uppsala: Kulturgeografiska institutionen vid Uppsala universitet.[in Swedish]
14. Holloway, L. & Hubbard, P., (2001) People and Place: the extraordinary geographies of everyday life. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
15. Järvinen, E., Toivonen, R. and Kaimre, P., (2003) The Information and Training Needs of Private Forest Owners in Estonia. Pellervo Economic Research Institute Working Papers 61.
16. Jörgensen, H. & Stjernström, O., (2008). Emotional links to forest ownership. Restitution of land and use of a productive resource in Põlva County, Estonia. Fennia 186 (2), 95-111.
17. Lipping, I., (1980) Land reform legislation in Estonia and the disestablishment of the Baltic German elite 1919-1939. Dissertation, University of Maryland. Ann Arbor, Mich.:
UMI.
18. Maa amet (Estonian Land Board) www.maamet.ee,
http://www.maaamet.ee/index.php?lang_id=2&page_id=202&menu_id=87.
19. Maandi, P. (2009) The silent articulation of private land rights in Soviet Estonia: A geographical perspective. Geoforum, 4 (3), 454-464.
20. Maareformi Seadus 1991-1999 (1999) (The Soviet Estonian law on farms) Juura Õigusteable As.
21. Massey, D., (2004) Space, place and gender. Oxford: Polity press.
22. Raun, T.U., (1981) The Estonian. In Edward. C Thaden (ed) Russification in the Baltic provinces and Finland 1855-1914. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton U.P.
23. Riley, M. & Harvey, D., (2007) Oral histories, farm practice and uncovering meaning in the countryside. Social & Cultural Geography. 8 (3), 391-415.
24. Rodríguez-Vicente, V. & Marey-Pérez, M. F., (2009) Land-use and land-base patterns of non-industrial private forests: Factors affecting forest management in Northern Spain.
Forest Policy and Economics. 11 (7), 475-490.
25. Setten, G., (2005) Farming the heritage: on the production and construction of a personal and practised landscape heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 11 (1), 67-79.
26. Smith, M., Davidson, J., Cameron, L., Bondi, L., (2009) Introduction: Geography and emotions – emerging constellations in Smith, M., Davidson, J., Cameron, L., Bondi, L., (eds.) Emotion, Place and culture. Aldershot: Ashgate.
27. Staerh, K., (2004) Economic Transition in Estonia. Background, Reforms and Results. In:
Rindzeviciute. E. (ed.) Contemporary Change in Estonia. Baltic and East European Studies 4. Södertörns Högskola.
28. Stiglitz, J., (2000) Whither Reform? Ten years of transition. In: Pleskovic, B. & Stiglitz, J.
(eds.) Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 1999.
29. Swinnen, J.F.M. & Mathijs, E., (1997) Agricultural privatisation, land reform and farm restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe: A comparative analysis. In: Swinnen, J. F. M.
& Buckwell, A & Mathijs, E (eds.) Agricultural privatisation, Land reform and Farm Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe, Aldershot, Ashgate.
30. Taagepera, R., (1972) Inequality indices for Baltic farm size distribution 1929-1940. J Baltic Stud. 3 (1), 26-34.
31. Terk, E., (2000) Privatisation in Estonia. Ideas, Process, Results. Estonian Institute for Future Studies. Tallinn.
32. Tuan, Y-F., (1974) Topophilia: a study of environmental perception. Prentice-Hall.
Englewood Cliff, NJ.
33. Unwin, T., (1997) Agricultural Restructuring and Integrated Rural Development in Estonia.
J Rural Stud.13 (1), 93-112.
34. Walker, A. J, & Ryan, R. L., (2008) Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: A Maine case study. Landscape Urban Plan. 86, 141-152.
